I can't show either side much pity when the players are turning down cap proposals still way higher than the NFL or NBA. it's one thing to hear "a guy's gotta eat" from a guy making 100 grand a year on a two-way contract, it's another to hear it from the millionaires.
if either side was willing to bend to a sensible level, this would've been solved in October.
It's like being a Democrat or a Republican: you believe who you want to believe. Someone can believe the players and make a very valid argument. Someone can believe the owners and make a very valid argument.
I, personally, believed the owners all along, until two days ago. I believed that the owners were saying, "Look, we caved in '94. We knew it wasn't going to work, but we did it anyway, to save the season. In the past years, the financial situation of the NHL has gone from semi-fucked to fucked to royally-anally-fucked. When the majority of teams lose millions of dollars every year, something is wrong.
"Look. You make $5 million. Instead of that, make $3.5 million. We'll get salaries down and then cap them. In addition, if we have a cap linked to revenues, if revenues go up, so does the cap. So if you guys bring people into the arenas with exciting hockey, your paychecks can increase.
"We're not going to give you what we have been giving you because owners are becoming bankrupt; it's not working. NHL revenues are a drop in the bucket compared to NFL, NBA, and MLB revenues. You get paid like players in other sports, but we don't. That's not a fair relationship. What we want is for you to get paid in accordance to the money you generate. That's more than fair. No CEO is paying himself more than what the company makes, all we are asking is for you to do the same."
That's what I believed, for around a year now. The NHL's proposed rollback was more fair than the NHLPA's rollback: the NHLPA rollback was the same across the board, while the NHL rollback took more from the higher-paid players than from the lower-paid players. A guy like Jagr would still make $6 million or so a year. Am I supposed to feel bad for somebody that *ONLY* makes $6 million a year? And yes, the same goes for people who would go from $500,000 to $450,000 (using the NHL rollback). That's five times the average salary in my town, and it is the third richest city in the richest county in the richest state in the country. What these guys make compared to doctors, lawyers, etc is an absolute joke. Even a guy that played two shifts in the NHL last year (Rob Skrlac) gets $500,000. That's a joke. It's not just the Jagr's and Brodeur's... the minimum salary is something like $450,000. Think about it: will you ever make close to that?
So I never had sympathy for them. Yes the owners locked them out, but the owners didn't want to, they HAD to. If you're losing millions and millions every year because you're paying someone too much, it's time to say: "Look, I can't pay you that much." But the NHL couldn't do that. The last CBA, which they caved to, dictated that the contracts were guaranteed - no player could receive less money nor could they be let go. NFL players can be let go. NHL players can't.
And can you blame owners for spending too much? To a point. But the problem is, owner A can pay way too much for player A. Then player B demands that much money from owner B. Owner B says no, so player B takes him to arbitration. At arbitration, player B says, "I scored as many goals as player A," etc etc. The arbitrator thus awards player B with a similar contract as player A. And what choice does owner B have? Lose one of his best players, or belly up and pay that amount?
A reminder: the owners wanted reverse salaray arbitration in '94 but didn't get it. On that issue, too, they caved. All they wanted was for it to be fair. If a player says, "I am exactly like player A, give me his salary," well, at the end of the year, owner B can say, "You said you were like him, yet he scored 40 goals and you scored 10. We're taking you to an arbitrator." And then, the players who didn't give their all (cough cough Jagr cough) would lose a significant chunk of their contract. RESPONSIBILITY.
To me, the owners demands were more than fair. Get paid according to the revenue you generate? Fair. If you can up your salary because of last year, we can down it because of this year? Fair. Accountability. That's what they wanted.
With ALL that said (can't believe I typed that much), Bettman lost me two days ago. When he said, "Well, if every team spent $49 million..." I nearly lost it. 23 teams would be under HIS cap of $44.7 million, let alone the $49 million cap. To suggest that, once a salary cap IS in place, that owners would spend like crazy? What fucking bullshit. He should have said, "Look, I offered $44.7, you offered $49, come to my office ASAP and we'll get somewhere in the middle and settle this thing." The end. They were TOO close. But instead of saving the season, he cancelled it.
strangeanimal is right. They're both fuckers. They were both so close that all the fans felt like they'd see training camp on Friday. But instead of bridging a small gap (P.S. Bettman's "Well it's not just $6.5 million, it's $6.5 million times 30" argument is fucking RETARDED. As I said, 23 teams would be under the limit, and it was only a $4.3 million gap, so it's $4.3 time 7, not $6.5 times 30 AT ALL)... instead of briding a small gap, both refused to be the one that caved. And then time ran out.
Philosophically, I'm still with the owners. Ask flanneryflyer what the Flyers organization did for their season ticket holders. They weren't crooks AT ALL. A few teams may fuck their fans over, but not every single one. But philosophy aside, they both are fuckers. They were so close and neither wouldn't compromise to save the season. Fuckers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:12 am (UTC)if either side was willing to bend to a sensible level, this would've been solved in October.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 06:38 pm (UTC)I, personally, believed the owners all along, until two days ago. I believed that the owners were saying, "Look, we caved in '94. We knew it wasn't going to work, but we did it anyway, to save the season. In the past years, the financial situation of the NHL has gone from semi-fucked to fucked to royally-anally-fucked. When the majority of teams lose millions of dollars every year, something is wrong.
"Look. You make $5 million. Instead of that, make $3.5 million. We'll get salaries down and then cap them. In addition, if we have a cap linked to revenues, if revenues go up, so does the cap. So if you guys bring people into the arenas with exciting hockey, your paychecks can increase.
"We're not going to give you what we have been giving you because owners are becoming bankrupt; it's not working. NHL revenues are a drop in the bucket compared to NFL, NBA, and MLB revenues. You get paid like players in other sports, but we don't. That's not a fair relationship. What we want is for you to get paid in accordance to the money you generate. That's more than fair. No CEO is paying himself more than what the company makes, all we are asking is for you to do the same."
That's what I believed, for around a year now. The NHL's proposed rollback was more fair than the NHLPA's rollback: the NHLPA rollback was the same across the board, while the NHL rollback took more from the higher-paid players than from the lower-paid players. A guy like Jagr would still make $6 million or so a year. Am I supposed to feel bad for somebody that *ONLY* makes $6 million a year? And yes, the same goes for people who would go from $500,000 to $450,000 (using the NHL rollback). That's five times the average salary in my town, and it is the third richest city in the richest county in the richest state in the country. What these guys make compared to doctors, lawyers, etc is an absolute joke. Even a guy that played two shifts in the NHL last year (Rob Skrlac) gets $500,000. That's a joke. It's not just the Jagr's and Brodeur's... the minimum salary is something like $450,000. Think about it: will you ever make close to that?
So I never had sympathy for them. Yes the owners locked them out, but the owners didn't want to, they HAD to. If you're losing millions and millions every year because you're paying someone too much, it's time to say: "Look, I can't pay you that much." But the NHL couldn't do that. The last CBA, which they caved to, dictated that the contracts were guaranteed - no player could receive less money nor could they be let go. NFL players can be let go. NHL players can't.
And can you blame owners for spending too much? To a point. But the problem is, owner A can pay way too much for player A. Then player B demands that much money from owner B. Owner B says no, so player B takes him to arbitration. At arbitration, player B says, "I scored as many goals as player A," etc etc. The arbitrator thus awards player B with a similar contract as player A. And what choice does owner B have? Lose one of his best players, or belly up and pay that amount?
A reminder: the owners wanted reverse salaray arbitration in '94 but didn't get it. On that issue, too, they caved. All they wanted was for it to be fair. If a player says, "I am exactly like player A, give me his salary," well, at the end of the year, owner B can say, "You said you were like him, yet he scored 40 goals and you scored 10. We're taking you to an arbitrator." And then, the players who didn't give their all (cough cough Jagr cough) would lose a significant chunk of their contract. RESPONSIBILITY.
To me, the owners demands were more than fair. Get paid according to the revenue you generate? Fair. If you can up your salary because of last year, we can down it because of this year? Fair. Accountability. That's what they wanted.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 06:38 pm (UTC)With ALL that said (can't believe I typed that much), Bettman lost me two days ago. When he said, "Well, if every team spent $49 million..." I nearly lost it. 23 teams would be under HIS cap of $44.7 million, let alone the $49 million cap. To suggest that, once a salary cap IS in place, that owners would spend like crazy? What fucking bullshit. He should have said, "Look, I offered $44.7, you offered $49, come to my office ASAP and we'll get somewhere in the middle and settle this thing." The end. They were TOO close. But instead of saving the season, he cancelled it.
strangeanimal is right. They're both fuckers. They were both so close that all the fans felt like they'd see training camp on Friday. But instead of bridging a small gap (P.S. Bettman's "Well it's not just $6.5 million, it's $6.5 million times 30" argument is fucking RETARDED. As I said, 23 teams would be under the limit, and it was only a $4.3 million gap, so it's $4.3 time 7, not $6.5 times 30 AT ALL)... instead of briding a small gap, both refused to be the one that caved. And then time ran out.
Philosophically, I'm still with the owners. Ask flanneryflyer what the Flyers organization did for their season ticket holders. They weren't crooks AT ALL. A few teams may fuck their fans over, but not every single one. But philosophy aside, they both are fuckers. They were so close and neither wouldn't compromise to save the season. Fuckers.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:22 am (UTC)Oh I know, I know. No NHL; no hockey in Dallas-frikkin'-Texas. But still, ya know??? :/
Argh.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:30 am (UTC)The Brahmas used to be quite the draw to Fort Worth, just west of Dallas...
That was some good hockey...not that I don't miss my Stars. *cries*
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 04:05 am (UTC)*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 05:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 09:05 am (UTC)fuckers
no subject
Date: 2005-02-17 03:47 pm (UTC)...and just think about all the fans' respective significant others, suffering from the fallout too... like meeeeee...
no subject
Date: 2005-02-18 11:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-19 12:07 am (UTC)